Resurrecting literature in schools

By A. Chaedar Alwasilah

BANDUNG (JP): The pleasures that draw our children first to literature are not those written by Rendra, Sutardji Calzoum Bachri, Goenawan Muhamad, Saini KM and others. Elementary students enjoy reading children magazines such as Bobo, Cerdas, Donal Bebek, and Aku Anak Saleh and stories such as Si Kabayan, Sangkuriang, and Malin Kundang. These satisfy the criterion of the here and now, in the sense that they are simple in language, familiar in theme, and inexpensive in price. These are the kinds of rewards most school students seek in early reading.

Most children will not become professional literary scholars like H.B. Yassin and the late St. Takdir Alisjahbana. When they finish school, they are more likely to drive cabs, wait tables, sell newspapers, work in stores or factories, and so on and so forth. To assume that they are interested in the works of Rendra, for example, is, in Probst's words (1988), "to make a rash leap of faith".

When we test students by asking them to memorize the authors' birthdays, sample works; to outline the summary of stories, categorize novels and identify techniques of creative writing, we make that leap. Such examinations are ambitious and academic yet irrelevant for school children who are unlikely to be literary critics. Teachers should realize that the questions have to do with the interests and satisfaction of the average reader.

As stated above, students are unlikely to come to the literature class with a scholarly passion for information about the source, say, of the Pujangga Baru or Balai Pustaka novels or the social context of modern Indonesian literature. They will bring with them personal experiences, interests, and a lengthy agenda of ideas, problems, worries, and attitudes, all of which concern and preoccupy them. If literature touches upon some of these preoccupations, their passion is aroused and they have a reason to read, for in the reading they may become the focus of attention.

Literary works, carefully selected to meet their personal needs, invite them in not only as participants, but also as spectators, giving them the opportunity to watch themselves through others. Reading literary works thus constitutes a psychological dialog, to enhance the understanding of life.

Tolerance, mutual respect, understanding, caring, responsibility and cooperation are virtues offered by literature. These virtues are universally recognized as essentials of human beings. In this respect, the function of literature should be deliberately made to humanize students.

Ours now is the era of modernization and industrialization, which in many cases has polluted established traditions and values. Recently, the nation was shocked by a series of acts that have undescribably hurt our conscience as human beings: the dumping of the unborn babies in the Jakarta area, the misuse of workers social security funds, rampant corruption and collusion, land appropriations, not to mention high school students' brawls in big cities, all of which have grabbed media headlines.

Don't you think the nation is being sick morally? The role of educators, sociologists and religious propagators is challenged to cure the ailing nation. These social problems are indeed moral problems.

Almost all over the globe, educators see literature as part of the humanities. It has been included as a subject of liberal education to make students better people, not those whose most serious thoughts are only of current hair styles, rock music, stereo tapes, flashy cars, and next week's schedule of soccer games. Literature is something from which students get moral education. Sir Philip Sidney (1554-1586) in his Apologie for Poetrie explains that by reading of the deeds of good and heroic men, we ourselves are led towards goodness and heroism.

Seno Gumira Ajidarma, the 1997 Southeast Asia Write Award winner, made a good point when he asserted that when journalism was restricted, literature should speak up! It is worth stating that Governor Sutiyoso has urged authors and novelists in Jakarta to help support Jakarta's development programs, which are hindered by public ignorance.

As reported by The Jakarta Post (Jan. 6, 1997), realizing that writers have the power to inform the public, the governor said: "I think you have to make easy-reading and touching stories so people -- at all levels -- can understand them."

Many educators, and wordsmiths in particular, claim that the present teaching of Bahasa, including literature, is a far cry from the ideal. The allocated hours for the subject are not sufficient for teaching the language, let alone for developing literature appreciation.

Many have suggested the subject be separated so as to consist of Bahasa and Indonesia literature with more hours allocated, notwithstanding that students are already overburdened by many school subjects. Such a separation is dangerous, for it wrongly treats literature and language as two different and mutually exclusive entities.

By way of comparison, American universities use the phrase English department, of which the Indonesian equivalents are Jurusan Bahasa and Sastra Indonesia. The phrases literally mean Indonesian language and literature department, thus suggesting two different areas: language and literature.

I believe that the above suggestions are not realistic. To make an informed decision, first and most importantly we need to understand the state of the art of literature. Second, we need to see literature vis a vis other school subjects in the framework of the national education system. Based on this elaboration, teaching Indonesian literature should be repositioned in the school curriculum with the following paradigm in mind.

First, literature is experience, not information. Students must be made to be part of it, not simply watching from the outside. When teachers ask students to memorize the facts, figures, and terminology of literature, the teachers do not do justice to literature as experience.

Second, the ultimate goal of literature is pleasure and self- indulgence. Teaching literature is commensurate with recognizing and valuing students' subjective experience. This implies that in schools, different literary pieces should be made available from which the students can choose. They are even encouraged to read and bring to class works from outside. Extensive reading outside the class is highly recommended as a literacy engagement. It is expected then that all students read different literary works, rather than work on the same novels or short stories, as commonly demanded by the curriculum. Indeed, the curriculum oftentimes becomes a prison of the teachers.

Third, literature is to be enjoyed through reading. At earlier stages, reading is developed through pleasure out of literature. When reading skills are already developed, they are to be used for reading any text for the rest of their life. In other words, teaching literature is intended to train students to be lonely and avid readers.

This being the case, the argument that the allocated hours are insufficient is irrelevant, because avid and independent readers read intensively and extensively inside the classroom and outside. At later stages, they become fully independent readers as learners. Literature from this point of view serves both to give pleasure and to sharpen understanding of nonliterary texts.

Fourth, literature is not the private territory of an intellectual elite. Instead, it constitutes the reservoir of ordinary human experience. Literary works have no significance at all until they are read. With this is mind, teachers should fully realize that they are not dealing with an intellectual elite, but with young readers that are being transformed into responsible literate people. This suggests that in theory, any literary work can be taught to students, provided the teacher knows how to accommodate students' experience.

Fifth, it is important to stress that literature, grammar, listening, speaking, reading, and writing are no longer dealt with as separate areas of language teaching. Instead, they are to be approached holistically. The separation has been responsible for pushing literature into the corner, to which few students and teachers turn. As a consequence, the whole language approach to language teaching necessitates teachers to be all-round, in the sense they are fairly knowledgeable about all areas of the language.

Certainly, teaching literature is not an easy job. Only professional teachers can resurrect literature in the school to play its major role, viz to humanize school students as human beings. And to teach language is ultimately to develop true language literacy, which can only be achieved through cultural literacy.

The writer is a lecturer at the Teachers Training Institute of Bandung, West Java.